[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <87va495sjc.fsf@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2018 18:59:43 +0530
From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: mpe@...erman.id.au, benh@...nel.crashing.org, paulus@...ba.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 4/5] mm/hugetlb: Add prot_modify_start/commit sequence for hugetlb update
"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com> writes:
> On 11/29/18 3:40 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Wed, 28 Nov 2018 20:04:37 +0530 "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>
>>
>> Some explanation of the motivation would be useful.
>
> I will update the commit message.
>
Is this good?
mm/hugetlb: Add prot_modify_start/commit sequence for hugetlb update
Architectures like ppc64 requires to do a conditional tlb flush based on the old
and new value of pte. Follow the regular pte change protection sequence for
hugetlb too. This allow the architectures to override the update sequence.
-aneesh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists